psychology of music list

i happened to find several illustrious names engaged in interesting
debates on a "psymus" list, e.g.:

http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000127.html

i'm joining this list to get in on the action!

http://www.srpmme.org.uk/lists/subscribe/psymus

In-Reply-To: <ajhdq8+cm08@...>
paulerlich wrote:

> i happened to find several illustrious names engaged in interesting
> debates on a "psymus" list, e.g.:
>
> http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000127.html

This is considered off-topic, is it?

The consensus seems to be that the root of chords is a purely cultural
phenomenon. So there's not innate reason for treating otonal and utonal
chords differently.

Also, this message:

<http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000141.html>

"""
After the work of Zwicker in the 1950s and Plomp in the 1960s it has
become
accepted in the auditory sciences that harmonics 10 to 15 are definitely
NOT
resolved by the auditory system.

This excludes both a natural and a cultural significance of these
harmonics
in harmony perception. Such high-order harmonics have a great importance
in
timbre perception, but not in harmony perception.
"""

A 9-limit cutoff sounds about right, depending on what you're looking for.
But does anybody know of specific papers that show this? It could save
me a lot of trouble working with 15-limit harmony ;-)

Oh, and the ICMAI in Edinburgh next month has one paper on tuning

<http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/icmai/accepted_papers.html>

"""
Miranda, France:
Mimetic development of intonation: a case study of musical evolution.
"""

Graham

Hello Graham!
a note from the same person.
I have always found Helmholtz the only reasonable course of investigation for
it takes into consideration both inversions and range. The others i have
found did not jive with my own observations or were so general to be useless.

Hi Paul, and all others,

there is an exciting report from July this year, which is related to last
year's discussion. I wanted to take up this issue anyway in the coming days.
But, as you are asking, I might as well do it now.

We have now results from nerve recording which show that the dissonance
beats suggested by Helmholtz are precisely represented in the neural firing
pattern of the auditory midbrain.

The abstract of the paper and a comment from my side can be found at:

http://hem.netlink.se/~sbe29751/Sinex.htm

Martin

-------------------------------------------
Martin Braun
Neuroscience of Music
S-671 95 Kl�ssbol
Sweden
e-mail: nombraun@...
web site: http://hem.netlink.se/~sbe29751/home.htm

Paul Erlich had written:

> i was just surfing the web and found some interesting d

graham@... wrote:

> In-Reply-To: <ajhdq8+cm08@...>
> paulerlich wrote:
>
> > i happened to find several illustrious names engaged in interesting
> > debates on a "psymus" list, e.g.:
> >
> > http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000127.html
>
> This is considered off-topic, is it?
>
> The consensus seems to be that the root of chords is a purely cultural
> phenomenon. So there's not innate reason for treating otonal and utonal
> chords differently.
>
> Also, this message:
>
> <http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000141.html>
>
> """
> After the work of Zwicker in the 1950s and Plomp in the 1960s it has
> become
> accepted in the auditory sciences that harmonics 10 to 15 are definitely
> NOT
> resolved by the auditory system.
>
> This excludes both a natural and a cultural significance of these
> harmonics
> in harmony perception. Such high-order harmonics have a great importance
> in
> timbre perception, but not in harmony perception.
> """
>
> A 9-limit cutoff sounds about right, depending on what you're looking for.
> But does anybody know of specific papers that show this? It could save
> me a lot of trouble working with 15-limit harmony ;-)
>
>
> Oh, and the ICMAI in Edinburgh next month has one paper on tuning
>
> <http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/icmai/accepted_papers.html>
>
> """
> Miranda, France:
> Mimetic development of intonation: a case study of musical evolution.
> """
>
> Graham
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In metatuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <ajhdq8+cm08@e...>
> paulerlich wrote:
>
> > i happened to find several illustrious names engaged in
interesting
> > debates on a "psymus" list, e.g.:
> >
> > http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000127.html
>
> This is considered off-topic, is it?
>
> The consensus seems to be that the root of chords is a purely
cultural
> phenomenon.

whose consensus? we have 30 years of virtual pitch theory and
experiments telling us otherwise. but today, we know that the root of
chords (rameau's basse fondamental) is clearly, in no uncertain
terms, transmitted to the brain:

http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/TramoHarmony.pdf

> So there's not innate reason for treating otonal and utonal
> chords differently.

one might even prefer utonal if it were all about minimizing beats.
but it isn't.

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> Hello Graham!
> a note from the same person.
> I have always found Helmholtz the only reasonable course of
investigation for
> it takes into consideration both inversions and range.

so does everyone else, except maybe partch.

> The others i have
> found did not jive with my own observations or were so general to
>be useless.

who are the "others"? name them.

paulerlich wrote:

> whose consensus?

The list that's the subject of this thread.

> we have 30 years of virtual pitch theory and
> experiments telling us otherwise. but today, we know that the root of
> chords (rameau's basse fondamental) is clearly, in no uncertain
> terms, transmitted to the brain:

The link you started off with

<http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000127.html>

says "major and minor chords are equally consonant. Evidence from auditory
science does not suggest that we should expect anything else." This was
never seriously contradicted. So you'll have to take it up on that list.

> http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/TramoHarmony.pdf

As this is dated 2001, I don't know if it was around when that thread was
alive. As I can't download the whole Q3 archive, I can't check if it was
mentioned.

Graham

come on now, guys ... there are now 8 posts in this
thread, and it really belonged on the main tuning list
to begin with.

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: <graham@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: [metatuning] Re: psychology of music list

> paulerlich wrote:
>
> > whose consensus?
>
> The list that's the subject of this thread.
>
> > we have 30 years of virtual pitch theory and
> > experiments telling us otherwise. but today, we know that the root of
> > chords (rameau's basse fondamental) is clearly, in no uncertain
> > terms, transmitted to the brain:
>
> The link you started off with
>
> <http://www.srpmme.org.uk/list-archives/psymus/2001q3/000127.html>
>
> says "major and minor chords are equally consonant. Evidence from auditory
> science does not suggest that we should expect anything else." This was
> never seriously contradicted. So you'll have to take it up on that list.
>
> > http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/TramoHarmony.pdf
>
> As this is dated 2001, I don't know if it was around when that thread was
> alive. As I can't download the whole Q3 archive, I can't check if it was
> mentioned.